tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post114804575682664811..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Kloppenborg reviews Questioning QMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1148055600890926892006-05-19T12:20:00.000-04:002006-05-19T12:20:00.000-04:00Kloppenborg critiqued: But Goodacre misunderstands...Kloppenborg critiqued: <I>But Goodacre misunderstands what the models are: they are metaphors, not descriptions of the IQP's procedures, which required the organization of huge bodies of data (scholarly opinion on the reconstruction of Q since 1863), using the analogy of critical editions of the New Testament, which organize <B>manuscript variations</B> around variation points.</I> (emphasis added)<BR/><BR/>I think K.'s critique shows the problem with using the text-critical model as a metaphor. The <I>Critical Edition of Q</I> does not cite "manuscript variations" in the apparatus. Textual criticism is about establishing a critical text based on manuscript witnesses. There are no manuscripts of Q.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps what all K. means by "text-critical model" is the adoption of eclecticism in their reconstructing of Q. I would not object to terming their reconstruction "eclectic," but it is appropriate, as you did Mark, to criticize the appelation of an enterprise that does not involve looking a variations in manuscript witnesses as "text critical." It is misleadingly implies that the evidentiary basis for the critical text of Q is the same as the critical text of Matthew or Luke. It is not, because we have manuscripts of Matt and Luke, not of Q.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com